Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s9: 9. Vasiṣṭha-dharmasūtra

History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s9

Language
English

Contents

9. Vasiṣṭha-dharmasūtra

v1.c6.s9.1

This *dharmasūtra* has been printed several times. The collection of Jivananda (part II, pp. 456-496) contains only 20 chapters and a portion of the 21st and so does the collection of Mr. M. N. Dutt (Calcutta 1908). The Ānandāśrama collection of smṛtis (1905, pp. 187-231) and the edition of Dr. Führer in the B. S. series (1916) contain thirty chapters. According to Dr. Jolly (R. u S., p. 6) some mss. give only six or ten chapters. The Vasiṣṭhadharmasūtra with the commentary called Vidvanmodinī was printed at Benares. In the following Dr. Fuhrer's edition has been used.

v1.c6.s9.2

Kumārila (vide note 55 above) tells us that the dharmasūtra of Vasiṣṭha was specially studied by the students of the Ṛgveda, but that along with other dharmasūtras it is authoritative for all *caraṇas*. No śrauta and gṛhya sūtras of Vasiṣṭha, if they ever existed, have come down to us. We have therefore to fall back upon one of two hypotheses, *viz.* either the dharmasūtra of Vasiṣṭha is the solitary remnant of a school that might have once possessed a complete *kalpa* or that it was composed as an independent work on *dharma* and was subsequently seized upon by the students of the Ṛgveda, who had only śrauta and gṛhya sūtras of Āśvalāyana. For reasons given elsewhere I incline to the latter view. The *dharmasūtra* of Vasiṣṭha cites quotations from all Vedas and beyond the name Vasiṣṭha there is hardly anything special in the dharmasūtra to connect it with the Ṛgveda. It is true that in the 17th chap. several verses of the Ṛgveda (such as I. 21. 5, I. 124. 7, V. 4. 10 which occur in sūtras, 3, 16 and 4 respectively) and several passages from the story of Śunaḥśepa in the Aitareyabrāhmaṇa are quoted by the sūtra and that several hymns of the Ṛgveda, such as the *asyavāmīya* (Ṛg. I. 164), *haviṣpāntīya* (Ṛg. X. 88), *Aghamarṣaṇa* (X. 190), are referred to in the 26th chap. But there is nothing remarkable in this as some of the verses and *sūktas* are mentioned in the Baudhāyanadharmasūtra also. Besides the Vas. Dh. S. quotes several passages from the Taittirīyasaṁhitā (as in Vas. V. 7-9, which quotes Tai. S. II. 5. 1. 6 and Vas. XI. 48 which quotes Tai. S. VI. 3. 10. 5), the Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa, the Maitrayṇīya-saṁhitā (in Vas. I. 37).

v1.c6.s9.3.1

The contents of the Vas. Dh. S. are :— I Definition of *Dharma*, limits of Āryāvarta, who are sinners, the mortal sins, a brāhmaṇa can marry a girl of any of the three higher castes, six forms of marriage, the king was to regulate the conduct of people and to take the sixth part of wealth as a tax ; II. The four *varṇas*, the greatness of *ācārya*, before *upanayana* there is no authority for religious rites, the privileges and duties of the four castes, in distress a Brāhmaṇa could subsist by resorting to the calling of a Kṣatriya or Vaiśya, a Brāhmaṇa was forbidden to sell certain things, usury condemned, rates of interest allowed ; III. Censure of illiterate Brāhmaṇa, rules on finding treasure-trove, who are *ātatāyins*, when they could be killed in self-defence, who are *paṅktipāvanas*, constitution of a *pariṣad*, rules about *ācamana*, *śauca* and purification of various substances ; IV. The constitution of the four castes is based upon birth and the performance of *saṁskāras*, the duties common to all castes, honouring guests, *madhuparka*, impurity on birth and death ; V. dependence of women, rules of conduct for a *rajasvala*; VI. usage is transcendental *dharma*, praise of *ācāra*, rules about answering calls of nature, moral characteristics of a brāhmaṇa and the peculiar characteristics of a śūdra, censure of partaking food at the houses of śūdras, rules of etiquette and good breeding ; VII the four *āśramas*, and the duties of a student ; VIII.

v1.c6.s9.3.2

Duties of an householder, honouring guests, IX. rules for forest hermits ; X. rules for *saṁnyāsins* ; XI. six persons who deserve special honour, viz. the priest at the sacrifice, son-in-law, king, paternal and maternal uncles and a *snātaka*; order of precedence in serving food, guests, rules about śrāddha, times for it, the brāhmaṇas to be invited at it, rules about *agnihotra*, *upanayana*, the proper time, staff, girdle &c. for it ; method of begging for alms, prāyaścitta for those whose *upanayana* is not performed ; XII. rules of conduct for a *snātaka* ; XIII. rules about the beginning of Vedic study, rules about holidays for Vedic studies, rules about falling at the feet of the *guru* and others, guiding principles in precedence as regards respect (learning, wealth, age, relationship, avocation, each prior deserving more consideration than each succeeding one), rule of the road ; XIV. rules about forbidden and permitted food, rules about the flesh of certain birds and animals ; XV. rules of adoption, about excommunication of those who revile the Vedas or perform sacrifices of śūdras and for other sins; XVI. About administration of justice, king as guardian of minors, threefold *pramāṇas*, viz. documents, witnesses and possession; rules about adverse possession and about king's advisers; qualifications of witnesses; perjury condoned in certain cases; XVII. praise of *aurasa* son; conflicting views about *kṣetraja* son, viz.

v1.c6.s9.3.3

whether he belongs to the begetter or to him on whose wife he is begotten; twelve kinds of sons; partition between brothers, grounds of exclusion from partition, rules of *niyoga*, rules about grown-up unmarried girl, rules of inheritance, king as ultimate heir; XVIII. *pratiloma* castes such as cāṇḍāla, no Vedic studies for śūdras or in their presence; XIX. king's duty to protect and to punish; importance of *purohita*; XX. about prāyaścittas for various acts unknowingly or knowingly done; XXI. prāyaścitta for adultery by Śūdra and others with women of the Brāhmaṇa caste or for cow-killing; XXII. prāyaścitta for eating forbidden food and sacred texts that purify in case of sins; XXIII. penances for *Brahmacārin* having sexual intercourse, for drinking wine &c.; XXIV. Kṛcchra and Atikṛcchra; XXV. secret penances and penances for lesser sins; XXVI-VII. virtues of prāṇāyāma, Vedic hymns of Gāyatrī as purifiers; XXVIII. praise of women, eulogy of Vedic *mantras* like *aghamarṣaṇa* and of gifts; XXIX. rewards of gifts, *brahmacarya*, *tapas* &c.; XXX. eulogy of *dharma*, truth and *brāhmaṇa*.

v1.c6.s9.4

The Vas. Dh. S. resembles in several respects the other dharma-sūtras described above. It contains almost the same subjects and is similarly composed in prose interspersed with verses. The Vas. Dh. S. is in style like the Gautamadharmasūtra and has many sūtras identical with or closely resembling those of the latter. Vide. p. 18 above. It has also several sūtras closely corresponding with the sūtras of Baudhāyana. Grave doubts have been entertained about the authenticity of the whole of the text of the Vas. Dh. S. as the mss. contain varying numbers of chapters from 6 to 30, and as the text is hopelessly corrupt in several places (e. g. vide note 108 below). The Vas. Dh. S. contains many verses which bear the impress of a comparatively late age. Chapters 25-28 are entirely in verse, while there are other chapters (like III. 2-12, VI. 1-13, XI. 20-42) which contain many verses interposed between prose passages. In this respect Vasiṣṭha's work is on a par with Baudhāyana’s, in the fourth praśna of which there are chapters entirely consisting of verses. It has therefore been argued that the text of Vasiṣṭha was tampered with freely, particularly as regards the chapters at the end. But as shown below it will have to be admitted that the interpolations, whatever they may be, were made at a very early period. The Mitākṣarā quotes Vas. by name about 80 times and the quotations are taken from almost every chapter from the first to the last. For example, Mit. quotes Vas. 27. 1 on Yāj. III. 311, Vas. 27. 21 on Yāj. III. 324, Vas. 28. 7 on Yāj. III. 298, Vas. 28. 18, 19 and 22 on Yāj. III. 310. Even Medhātithi quotes Vasiṣṭha over twenty times. The quotations are mostly taken from the first chapter to the 21st. Only one quotation from the last few chapters (viz. 27. 16) has been found in Medhātithi (on Manu XI. 211) and that too is not quoted as Vasiṣṭha’s, but is ascribed to ‘others.’ Viśvarūpa, who flourished about the first quarter of the 9th century quotes Vas. about thirty times in his commentary on the *ācāra* and *vyavahāra* sections of Yāj. These quotations hardly differ in any respect from the text of Dr. Führer’s edition and are scattered over almost all chapters from the 1st to the 17th, six quotations being taken from chapters 3 and 17 each. In the prāyaścitta section Viśvarūpa quotes Vas. even more frequently. Besides several sūtras from the 1st, 4th, 10th and 11th chapters, he quotes here no less than 22 sūtras of the 20th chap. and 9 of the 21st. Moreover sūtras 37 and 39 of the 23rd chap. are quoted (on Yāj. III 281-282). What is more remarkable is that two verses (2-3) of the 28th chapter are ascribed to Vasiṣṭha and explained in detail (on Yāj. III. 256), while Vas. 28. 4 is quoted without the author’s name. These facts make it certain that the Vas. Dh. S. contained in Viśvarūpa’s day all the chapters from the first to the 23rd and also the 28th. Śaṅkara in his bhāṣya in Bṛ. Upaniṣad (III. 5. 1) quotes Vas. X. 4 and on Bṛ. Up. IV. 5. 15 he quotes Vas. VII. 3. The Vas. Dh. S. quotes numerous verses preceded by the words ‘athāpyudāharanti’, which is the case with Baudhāyana also. Several verses occur without these words being prefixed, but most of them seem to be quotations (e. g. Vas. II. 3 which combines Manu. II-169 and 170, IV. 6 which is Manu 5. 41, VI. 6 and 8 which are Manu IV. 157 and 158). Some of these verses introduced with the words ‘athāpi’ &c. as well as some of those not so introduced are in the regular classical Upajāti, Upendravajrā or Indravjrā (vide. I. 38, X. 20 for verses with *athāpi* &c.

v1.c6.s9.5

and VI. 9 and 25, X. 17, XVI. 36 for verses without them). Some of the verses are in the ancient Triṣṭubh form (e. g. VI. 3 and 30, VIII. 17, XVII. 71). In one verse (VI. 5) there are twelve letters in the first *pāda* and 11 in the rest. One quotation with the words "athāpi" &c. is in prose (II. 5). There are a few un-Pāṇinean forms like 'Vivadanti' in XIV. 47 (*vide* Pāṇini I. 3. 47). It looks as if the dharmasūtra once ended with the 24th chapter, where we have an injunction (in sūtra 6) against imparting the dharmasūtra to one who is not a son or pupil. The same sūtra occurs in Baudhāyana Dh. S. IV. 4. 9 and the succeeding sūtra is the same in both. But the words 'prāyaścitta has been described in the *rahasya* sections for playing false to the husband' (in Vas. V. 4) apparently refer either to chapters 25-28 (which contain *rahasya* penances) or to some prototype of those chapters now lost.

v1.c6.s9.6.1

The Vas. Dh. S. quotes largely from the Ṛgveda and other Vedic *Saṃhitās*. Among the Brāhmaṇas, the Aitareya and Śatapatha are frequently cited. The Vājasaneyaka (Vas. 12. 31 and 23. 13) and the Kāṭhaka (Vas. 12. 24 and 30. 5) are mentioned by name. The Tai. Āraṇyaka is quoted in Vas. 23. 23. The Upaniṣads and Vedānta occur in 22. 9. Vasiṣṭha quotes a *gāthā* of the Bhāllavins from their Nidāna work about the extent of the home of Brāhmanism, which is quoted by Baudhāyana also (Dh. S. I. 1. 27). He speaks of the *aṅgas* of the Veda (3. 23 and 13. 7) and gives their number as six (3. 19). Itihāsa and Purāṇa are mentioned in 27. 6. The science of words (grammar), of omens and portents and of astrology and astronomy (Nakṣatravidyā) are referred to in 10. 20-21. He prohibits the learning of the language of the Mlecchas (in 6. 41). Vas. quotes a verse that states that the view holding the *aprāmāṇya* of the Vedas leads to perdition (12. 41). In Vas. II. 8-11 occurs the Vidyāsūkta in four verses that we meet with in the Nirukta (II. 4). Vasiṣṭha calls his own work dharmaśāstra (in 24. 6) and probably refers to other works on *dharma* in the words 'one who studies dharmas' (in 3. 19). The study of dharmaśāstra as a penance for even mortal sins is spoken of in 27. 19. Vas. quotes several authors on dharmaśāstra. He quotes a verse from Hārīta (in II. 6) which occurs in Baudhāyana also with slight variations (Baud. Dh. S. I. 2. 7), though without the author's name.

v1.c6.s9.6.2

The two halves of this verse are almost the same as the latter halves of Manu. 2. 171-172. Bühler is therefore not quite accurate when he says without qualification that the verse attributed to Hārīta occurs in Manu (p. XX, S. B. E. vol. XIV). Vas. quotes Gautama twice (in 4. 35 and 37) about impurity on death, the first corresponding to Gautama (14. 41), while there is nothing in Gautama to correspond to the 2nd. Vas. quotes a verse (11. 20) which mentions Yama by name and embodies the latter's views. Vas. (18. 13-15) quotes three ślokas sung by Yama, one of which (14) is the same as Manu 4. 80 and another (15) is very similar to Manu 4. 81. Another śloka of Yama is quoted by Vas. (19. 48) which is almost the same as Manu 5. 93. From these facts and others Bühler draws the conclusion (S. B. E. vol. XIV, p. XX) that these verses were taken from the Mānavadharmasūtra, which occupied the same position in Vasiṣṭha's day as the Manusmṛti does at present. I demur to this conclusion, which will be discussed later on in detail (under Manusmṛti). Vas. (14. 30-32) quotes ślokas of Prajāpati, the first of which mentions Yama by name. Vas. 14. 16-19 and 24-27 are quoted as ślokas of Prajāpati, three of which (14. 16, 18 and 24) are practically the same as Manu. 4. 248, 249 and 5. 127. Vas. 14. 19 contains a *pāda* which occurs in Manu 4. 212. It is remarkable that the Vas. Dh. S. cites Vasiṣṭha himself with great reverence (as *bhagavān*) in 2. 50 (about the rate of interest), 24.

v1.c6.s9.6.3

5 (about Kṛcchra penance), 30. 11. In numerous places the Vas. Dh. S. either refers to Manu by name or quotes the views of Manu (under the form ‘iti Mânavam’) or a śloka of Manu (with the words ‘Mānavam ślokam). All these passages have an important bearing on the age of the Manusmṛti and on the supposed existence of a Mānavadharma-sūtra. They therefore deserve to be carefully examined. Vas. I. 17 is in prose (about local, family or caste usages) and summarises the views of Manu. The absence of the word ‘iti’ before ‘abravīn’ Manuḥ’ and the form of the sūtra itself clearly establishes that Vas. is not directly quoting a sūtra of Manu. That sūtra is only a summary of our Manu I. 118. Vas. 3. 2 (which is preceded by the words ‘Mānavam ślokam’) is Manu II. 168. And so are Vas. 13. 16, 20. 18, which are Manu 4.117 and 11.151 (with very slight variations). That the latter existed in Vasiṣṭha's text is vouched for by Aparārka (p. 1075). Vas. 4. 5 is in prose and cites the view of Manu that animals may be sacrificed only for worshipping and honouring the manes, deities and guests¹⁰⁵. There is hardly anything to show that it is a direct quotation from Manu and not a summary of Manu's views. The sūtra briefly summarises the views that we find expressed in our Manu 5. 22, 32, 41 and 42 (the words of 42 ‘eṣvartheṣu paśuṁ hiṁsan’ are interesting and bear a close resemblance to ‘paśuṁ hiṁsyād’ in Vas.). That sūtra is followed by a verse which is the same as Manu 5. 41.

v1.c6.s9.6.4

It is to be noted that the same verse occurs in the dharmasūtra of Viṣṇu (51. 64) which reads ‘nānyatreti kathaṁcana’ for ‘nānyathetyabravīn Manuḥ’. This change appears to have been purposely made to keep up the impression that the Viṣṇu-Dh. S. emanated from Viṣṇu himself and so could not have borrowed from a human author. Vas. 4. 7 is very similar to Manu 5. 48. Bühler (S. B. E. Vol. 25, p. xxxi) is wrong in taking Vas. 4. 8 as a quotation from the Mānava-dharmasūtra. There is nothing to show that it is so taken. It is more probably a quotation from or a summary of a Brāhmaṇa passage (compare a quotation in Aparārka on Yāj. I. 109, which is similar). Vide note 46. Vas. 23.43 (where Manu is referred to as prescribing an easy penance called Śiśukṛcchra for children and old men) corresponds more or less with Manu 11. 211 and 219 and Vas. 26. 8 has evidently Manu 11. 260 in view. There are only two places in Vasiṣṭha where the name of Manu occurs for which it is not possible to point out a corresponding verse in the Manusmṛti. They are Vas. 12. 16 and 19 37. The latter is cited as a Mānavaśloka and is in the Upajāti metre.¹⁰⁶ Because this is not found in our Manu, Bühler and other Western scholars seem to think that the verse is taken from the Mānava-dharmasūtra which once existed in mixed prose and verse and is now lost. But as will be shown elsewhere this hypothesis is based, to say the least, on very slender foundations.

v1.c6.s9.6.5

Besides these two that are not found in our Manu, there are about forty verses that are common to the Vas. Dh. S. and the Manusmṛti and about a dozen verses which, though not strictly identical, are more or less similar. There are several prose sūtras of Vas. which correspond to the verses of Manu almost word for word.¹⁰⁷ The hypothesis that commends itself to me is that Vas. contains borrowings from the Manusmṛti or its purer ancient original in verse.

v1.c6.s9.7

¹⁰⁵ पितृदेवातिथिपूजायामप्येवं पशुं हिंस्यादिति मानवम् । वसिष्ठ 4. 5; वसिष्ठ 4. 8 is अथापि ब्राह्मणाम वा राजन्याय वाभ्यागताय महोक्षाणं वा महाजं वा पचेदेवमस्मा आतिथ्यं कुर्वन्तीति ।

v1.c6.s9.8

¹⁰⁶ शुल्के चापि मानवं श्लोकमुदाहरन्ति—न भिन्नकार्षापणमस्ति शुल्के न शिल्पवृत्तौ न शिशौ न दूते । न भैक्षलब्धे न हुतावशेषे न श्रोत्रिये न प्रब्रजिते न यज्ञे ॥ The वि. र. (p. 305) says 'वसिष्ठः शुल्के चापि मानवं श्लोकमुदाहरति न भिन्नम्' &c.

v1.c6.s9.9

¹⁰⁷ वसिष्ठ 7. 3. ‘तेषां वेदमधीत्य वेदौ वेदान्वाविशीर्णब्रह्मचयो यमिच्छेत्तमावसेत् ।' compare मनु 3. 2; वसिष्ठ 13. 61 ‘तृणभूम्यम्बुदकवाक्सूनृतानसूयाः सतां गृहे नोच्छिद्यन्ते कदाचन ।', compare मनु 3. 101; वसिष्ठ 16. 30 ‘स्त्रीणां साक्षिणः स्त्रियः कुर्याद् द्विजानां सदृशा द्विजाः शूद्राणां सन्तः शूद्राश्चान्त्यानामन्त्ययोनयः', compare with मनु 8. 68 ‘स्त्रीणां साक्ष्यं स्त्रियः कुर्युर्द्विजानां सदृशा द्विजाः । शूद्राश्च सन्तः शूद्राणामन्त्यानामन्त्ययोनयः ॥’.

v1.c6.s9.10

In the words ‘Śrāmaṇakenāgnimādhāya’ (Vas. 9. 10), the sūtra of Vikhanas seems to be referred to. Gautama (Dh. S. 3. 26) contains the same words. Vasiṣṭha's 22nd chap. is the same as Gautama's 19th and Baudhāyana's tenth in the 3rd *praśna* and seems to have been borrowed from Gautama. Vasiṣṭha refers to the views of others in the words ‘eke’ or ‘anye’ (Vas. 1. 12, 13, 25; 4. 10; 17. 66; 20. 2). Dr. Jolly (S. B. E. vol. VII, p. xviii) thinks that Vas. 28. 10-15 and 18-22 are borrowed from the Viṣṇudharmasūtra chap. LVI and LXXXVII [or its original the Kāṭhakadharmasūtra. Dr. Jolly is not right with regard to both the places. Bühler has already pointed out his mistake as to the second passage (S. B. E. vol. XIV p. XXII). The verses in Vas. 28. 10-15 occur in several smṛtis (vide Śaṅkhasmṛti, 10th chap. in Jivananda's ed. part II. pp. 356-357 for the same verses). Besides Vas. 28. 11 occurs in Baud. Dh. S. IV. 3. 7. Hence it is hardly proper for any scholar to make the dogmatic assertion that one particular smṛti must have borrowed from any other. The rather very corrupt passage in Vasiṣṭha (16. 21-23¹⁰⁸) very closely resembles a passage of Śaṅkha, which is cited by Viśvarūpa on Yāj. I. 305 and by the Kṛtya-kalpataru (I. O. Cat. Ms. No. 852, folio 8a).

v1.c6.s9.11

¹⁰⁸ The printed Vas. reads ‘वेधसो वा राजा श्रेयान् गृध्रपरिवारं स्यात् । गृध्रपरिवारं वा राजा श्रेयान् । गृध्रपरिवारं स्यान्न गृध्रो गृध्रपरिवारं स्यात्’. This hardly makes any sense. The कृत्यकल्पतरु presents a good reading (from शङ्खलिखित) ‘न गृध्रपरिवारः स्यात् । कामं गृध्रो राजा श्रेयान् हंसपरिवारः । परिवाराद्धि दोषाः प्रादुर्भवान्त । तेऽलं विनाशाय ।'.

v1.c6.s9.12

Bühler is of opinion that the home of the school to which the Vas. Dh. S. belonged lay to the north of the Narmadā and the Vindhya (S. B. E. vol. XIV p. XVI). When it is extremely problematical whether the Vas. Dh. S. was the product of a school, it is idle to speculate as to the home of the Vas. Dh. S. Bühler’s is no more than a mere conjecture and it is better to admit that we know nothing positive at present on the point.

v1.c6.s9.13

The earliest work to refer to Vasiṣṭha as an authority on *dharma* is our Manu (8. 140), saying that Vas. allowed 1/80th of the principal as interest per month. This appears to refer to the rule in Vas. 2. 50. We saw above that Vas. borrows from the Manusmṛti, which in its turn quotes a rule of Vasiṣṭha. The explanation of this is twofold. Both the Manusmṛti and Vas. have received later additions and further it is possible that the present Vas. Dh. S. is the work of some one who had received the teachings of Vas. through a succession of teachers and disciples. Yāj. mentions (1. 4) Vasiṣṭha as a writer on *dharma*. The Tantravārtika as seen above (note 55) remarks that the Vas. Dh. S. was studied by Ṛgvedins. The same work when speaking of works on dharma puts Manu, Gautama and Vasiṣṭha in the forefront.108a Viśvarūpa, Medhātithi and other early commentators largely quote from Vas. The verse ‘agnerapatyaṁ’ (Vas. 28. 16) occurs in the Ragīm copperplate of Tīvaradeva of the last quarter of the 8th century (Fleet’s Gupta Inscriptions No. 81). Therefore the existence of a work of Vasiṣṭha on dharma at least in the first centuries of the Christian era is vouched for with certainty and the authenticity of its text is supported by eminent writers from the 7th century downwards. Aparārka quotes passages from the Bhaviṣyapurāṇa which have in view the present text of Vas.¹⁰⁹ Some of the views held by Vasiṣṭha are very ancient. For example, he speaks of the twelve secondary sons, assigns a very inferior position to the Dattaka son (17th chapter), allows *niyoga* (17. 56 ff) and the remarriage of child widows (17. 74); like Āpastamba he mentions only six forms of marriage (1. 28-29), *brāhma*, *daiva*, *ārṣa*, *gāndharva*, *kṣātra* and *mānuṣa*. In some respects his views are different from those of early writers like Gautama and Baudhāyana. He prohibits the marriage of a Brāhmaṇa with a śūdra woman (I. 25-26). Vide Baud. Dh. S. I. 8. 2 for the contrary view. He elaborates rules of adoption (15th chapter) which are not found in Gaut. or Baud. or Āpastamba. He speaks of documents as one of the three means of proof (Vas. 16. 10-15), while Gautama, Āpastamba and Baudhāyana are silent on the point, though in Gautama (13. 4) there appears to be a reference to documents. Taking all these things into consideration it may be said that Vasiṣṭha is later than Gautama, Āpastamba and Baudhāyana, but much earlier than the beginnings of the Christian era and may tentatively be assigned to the period between 300-100 B. C. It has been asserted by an eminent authority (Cambridge History of India vol. I, p. 249) that Vasiṣṭha 18. 4 (vaiśyena brāhmaṇyām-utpanno Rāmako bhavatītyāhuḥ) probably contains a reference to the Romans. This assumptiou is gratuitous and does not deserve serious consideration. The reading Romaka (on which the learned writer relies) is not supported by the best mss. and it is most hazardous to seize with avidity on a variant reading and to build an imposing structure of chronology thereon. The offspring of a Vaiśya male from a Brāhmaṇa woman is designated Rāmaka by Vasiṣṭha, while Gautama calls him Kṛta (4. 15) and Baud. Dh. S. (I. 9. 7) calls such an offspring Vaidehaka; so Rāmaka has as much to do with the Romans as with Rameses. In the *nibandhas* there are several quotations ascribed to Vasiṣṭha which are not found in the printed Dharmasūtra. For example, Haradatta on Gaut. (22. 18) quotes a verse in the Upajāti metre which is not found in the present text¹¹⁰.

v1.c6.s9.14

108a ‘प्रायेण मनुगौतमवसिष्ठादिप्रणीताः समानेष्वेवार्थेषु धर्मसंहिता वर्तन्ते । तेनाविगानात्साम्य एव श्रुतयः स्वमनुमानाः । न च व्याकरणस्य ताभिः समानार्थत्वम् ।’ तन्त्रवार्तिक on जैमिनि I. 3. 24.

v1.c6.s9.15

¹⁰⁹ ‘वसिष्ठेन समाख्यातं ब्रह्महत्याव्यपोहनम् । द्वादशरात्रमब्भक्षो द्वादशरात्रमुपवसेत् ॥’ अपरार्क p. 1067 (this is वसिष्ठ 23. 38); ‘वसिष्ठेन तथोक्तं वै प्रायश्चित्तं सुराधिप । कामतो मद्यपाने तु न सुरायाः कदाचन ।’ अपरार्क p. 1075 (this is वसिष्ठ 20. 19).

v1.c6.s9.16

¹¹⁰ The verse is न नालिकेरेण न शणघण्टैर्न चापि मौञ्जेन न बभ्रशूल्कैः । एतैर्नृपाशं न नियच्छनीया यद्यानुतिष्ठेत् परशुं प्रगृह्य ॥ The same verse is quoted in मिताक्षरा (on याज्ञ. III. 264) without the author's name.

v1.c6.s9.17

So early a writer as Viśvarūpa cites (on Yāj. I. 19) the views of a writer called Vṛddha-Vasiṣṭha. The Mit. on Yāj. (II. 91) quotes the definition of a *jayapatra* (judgment) from Vṛddha-Vasiṣṭha and on III. 20 quotes him about impurity on miscarriage. The Smṛticandrikā quotes about 20 verses from Vṛddha-Vasiṣṭha on *āhnika* and *śrāddha*; Bhaṭṭoji in his gloss on the Caturviṁśatimate (p. 12) seems to quote a prose passage fron Vṛddha-Vasiṣṭha. From the above it follows that Vṛddha-Vasiṣṭha was an early compilation and dealt with almost all such topics (including Vyavahāra) as are dealt with by Yāj. The Mit. also quotes a Bṛhad-Vasiṣṭha. The Smṛticandrikā (III. p. 300) quotes a few verses from a Jyotir-Vasiṣṭha. The I. O. catalogue (No. 1339 p. 392) speaks of a Vasiṣṭha-smṛti in ten *adhyāyas* about the religious observances and duties enjoined on devotees of Viṣṇu.

v1.c6.s9.18

That Yajñasvāmin wrote a commentary on the Vas. Dh. S. follows from Govindasvāmin's comment on Baud. Dh. S. (II. 2. 51), where he quotes Vas. 21. 13 and Yajñasvāmin's comment thereon.

Linked texts (15)